Hardy & Anor v Hoade & Ors, Re North Harrow Tennis Club

Hardy & Anor v Hoade & Ors, Re North Harrow Tennis Club

The club's rules, specifically rules 18 and 19, are to be construed as providing a comprehensive scheme for distribution of assets on dissolution, including where dissolution occurs without a formal resolution. There is an implied term that the net assets are to be distributed in accordance with the length of playing membership, subject to a three-year qualifying period, and excluding those expelled or in default. The qualifying period is three years, not five. Claims of members not meeting the qualifying period or not supported by evidence are rejected.

Parties
Claimant: Joyce Irene Hardy; Claimant: Diane Owen; Defendant: David John Hoade; Defendant: Robert Jeffrey Rodgers; Defendant: Roy Henry Peter Rodgers; Defendant: Sandip Patel; Defendant: Katia Mughal; Defendant: Shaff Mughal; Defendant: Arthur Denny; Defendant: John Christopher Sayer; Defendant: Sandra Judith Staples; Defendant: Ann Denise Burditt; Defendant: Amit Ruparelia; Defendant: Thorsten Nilsson; Defendant: Kishan Sangani; Defendant: Alpen Khagram; Defendant: Keith Hardy; Defendant: Raaj Sangani; Defendant: Heather C Hurle; Defendant: Nicholas John Hurle; Defendant: Helen Dolan; Defendant: Anish Ruparelia
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
06 October 2017
Procedural Posture
Originating Summons / Trustees' Application / Final Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Application granted in part; directions given for distribution of assets; costs order in favour of trustees.
Legal Topics
Dissolution of Unincorporated Associations, Distribution of Assets on Dissolution, Interpretation of Club Rules, Implied Contractual Terms, Trustee Indemnity
Trusts and Estates Property Law Contract Law Dissolution of Unincorporated Associations Distribution of Assets on Dissolution Interpretation of Club Rules Implied Contractual Terms Trustee Indemnity

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Joyce Irene Hardy

Claimant

Diane Owen

Claimant

David John Hoade

Defendant

Robert Jeffrey Rodgers

Defendant

Roy Henry Peter Rodgers

Defendant

Sandip Patel

Defendant

Katia Mughal

Defendant

Shaff Mughal

Defendant

Arthur Denny

Defendant

John Christopher Sayer

Defendant

Sandra Judith Staples

Defendant

Ann Denise Burditt

Defendant

Amit Ruparelia

Defendant

Thorsten Nilsson

Defendant

Kishan Sangani

Defendant

Alpen Khagram

Defendant

Keith Hardy

Defendant

Raaj Sangani

Defendant

Heather C Hurle

Defendant

Nicholas John Hurle

Defendant

Helen Dolan

Defendant

Anish Ruparelia

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Originating Summons / Trustees' Application / Final Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Proper method for distribution of assets of a dissolved unincorporated members' club
  2. 2 Whether club rules provide a comprehensive scheme for distribution or default to common law
  3. 3 Whether a term should be implied to cover dissolution without a members' resolution

Ratio Decidendi

The club's rules, specifically rules 18 and 19, are to be construed as providing a comprehensive scheme for distribution of assets on dissolution, including where dissolution occurs without a formal resolution. There is an implied term that the net assets are to be distributed in accordance with the length of playing membership, subject to a three-year qualifying period, and excluding those expelled or in default. The qualifying period is three years, not five. Claims of members not meeting the qualifying period or not supported by evidence are rejected.

Court Disposition

Application granted in part; directions given for distribution of assets; costs order in favour of trustees.

Orders

  • Net assets of the club to be distributed among qualifying past and present members in proportion to their length of playing membership, subject to a three-year qualifying period.
  • Claims of Katia and Shaff Mughal dismissed for not meeting qualifying period and lack of evidence.